85 F.4th 416
6th Cir.2023Background
- On Feb. 19, 2020, Fowlerville Officer Caitlyn Peca stopped Ryohei Akima for a broken headlight, administered field sobriety tests, and conducted a preliminary breath test.
- The breathalyzer actually read about 0.02 BAC, but Peca misread it as 0.22; she arrested Akima for operating while intoxicated.
- Video and testimony show Peca administered some sobriety tests improperly and repeatedly stated she was inexperienced and unsure what she was doing.
- Akima’s later blood test showed a BAC of 0.014; OUI charges were dismissed. Akima alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, and IIED, claiming he lost his U.S. work visa and was deported.
- The district court denied Peca’s qualified-immunity dismissal and partially denied summary judgment, allowing Fourth Amendment claims to proceed; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest for driving without a license | Akima produced passport/visa and said he had an international license; two minutes was insufficient to demand more | Peca contends Akima failed to produce a valid license on demand | Court: Under Moore precedent, driver must be given a reasonable opportunity; two minutes was insufficient—probable cause lacking and summary judgment properly denied |
| Probable cause to arrest for OUI based on sobriety tests | Sobriety tests were unreliable/misadministered; breath test actually 0.02 and other exculpatory facts indicated sobriety | Peca points to admission he drank, balance issues on tests, and her (mistaken) 0.22 breath result | Court: Material disputes about test administration, weight of exculpatory evidence, and objective breath result preclude resolving probable cause as a matter of law; jury question |
| Reasonableness of officer’s misreading of breathalyzer (Heien mistake-of-fact defense) | Misreading of an objective device was unreasonable; proper reading would have negated probable cause | Peca argues her misreading was a reasonable factual mistake | Court: Mistake-of-fact must be reasonable; a breathalyzer gives an objective read—jury could find misreading unreasonable, so immunity not established |
| Qualified immunity overall | Akima: officer violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by arresting without probable cause | Peca: even if probable cause lacking, reasonable officers would not know arrest violated clearly established law | Court: Given controlling precedent and disputed facts that could show lack of probable cause, qualified immunity was inappropriate at dismissal/summary judgment stages; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Throckmorton, 681 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2012) (video ambiguous; credibility and disputed facts can defeat probable cause and immunity)
- Miller v. Sanilac County, 606 F.3d 240 (6th Cir. 2010) (post-arrest blood test of 0.00 did not automatically negate jury question about probable cause)
- Kinlin v. Kline, 749 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2014) (where facts are undisputed and supported by video, probable cause may be decided as a matter of law)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (reasonable mistakes of fact can support searches/arrests, but mistakes must be objectively reasonable)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (where video plainly contradicts plaintiff’s account, the court may adopt the video version)
- D.C. v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018) (qualified immunity two-prong framework; clearly established law standard)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity protects officials unless they violated clearly established rights)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (orders denying qualified immunity are appealable to extent they turn on legal issues)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (district courts may choose which qualified-immunity prong to address first)